cincydooley wrote:

So what....you're fact checking and confirming? On an Internet forum?

Man, I know I can get ridiculous sometimes, but you, sir, take the cake.

 dogma wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:

 dogma wrote:
Good, you're actually using real quotes.

If you're going to be pedantic about semantics, the correct (plural form of the) noun is "quotations".

The plural form of the word "quotation" is indeed "quotations" but, as many have recognized that "quote" and "quotation" can be used interchangeably (to some degree), there is no issue with my usage of the word "quotes"

Also, my objection was not over semantics, but attribution. There is a damning quote from the Union Letter which Relapse could have used:

Right now, unless you and the Obama Administration enact an equitable fix, the ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.

Relapse wrote:

I did give you that quote:

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:

I did give you that quote:

No, you didn't. You cited an article, that cited a document, that contained the relevant quote. Perhaps you should have simply cited the document?

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:

I did give you that quote:

No, you didn't. You cited an article, that cited a document, that contained the relevant quote. Perhaps you should have simply cited the document?

 cincydooley wrote:

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:

I did give you that quote:

No, you didn't. You cited an article, that cited a document, that contained the relevant quote. Perhaps you should have simply cited the document?

See, it's gak like this I just don't understand. Why? What's the purpose of a statement like this? What does it add? Or is it simply for your own edification? I'd love like, a real answer, because it truly makes no sense to me.

 cincydooley wrote:

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:

I did give you that quote:

No, you didn't. You cited an article, that cited a document, that contained the relevant quote. Perhaps you should have simply cited the document?

See, it's gak like this I just don't understand. Why? What's the purpose of a statement like this? What does it add? Or is it simply for your own edification? I'd love like, a real answer, because it truly makes no sense to me.

 Easy E wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:

I did give you that quote:

No, you didn't. You cited an article, that cited a document, that contained the relevant quote. Perhaps you should have simply cited the document?

See, it's gak like this I just don't understand. Why? What's the purpose of a statement like this? What does it add? Or is it simply for your own edification? I'd love like, a real answer, because it truly makes no sense to me.

He's asking you* to think about your sources, without asking you to think about your sources. By doing so, he is urging you to be rigorous in your research and not just play a game of resources telephone which causes the actual original source to be distorted into somethign it is not. Essentially, he he asking for intellectual rigor, even though it is a message board.


* Note= I am using the word "you" in the universal sense.

 Ouze wrote:
I hope you guys keep focusing on personal attacks so this godforsaken thread can finally be locked.

 Ouze wrote:
I hope you guys keep focusing on personal attacks so this godforsaken thread can finally be locked.

Barbara Neff of Santa Monica is one of the roughly 1 million Californians who recently got word that their health insurance coverage would be expiring soon.
The canceled plans sparked a political firestorm as people realized President Obama's promise — "If you like your plan, you can keep it" — didn't apply to everyone.
But Neff, a 46-year-old self-employed writer, isn't outraged. She's relieved. Even though she makes too much money to receive a subsidy to buy insurance under the Affordable Care Act, the policy cancellation was good news for her.
She's not the only one. Other Californians are also finding that having their plans canceled allows them to sign up for better coverage.
Neff says she's been stuck in a bad plan because treatment for a back problem years ago red-flagged her with a pre-existing condition.
"The deductible has ranged anywhere from $3,000 to as high as $5,000, which means I have to spend that much each year before the insurance even kicks in," she says. "I was rejected [from a more affordable policy] because I'd had a bout of sciatica five years previously that has never returned."
On Jan. 1, the federal health law prohibits insurers from denying coverage or charging more for such pre-existing problems. That's opened an array of options for Neff, who has enrolled in a new plan through California's state-run insurance marketplace, Covered California. On Thursday, the state health exchange board voted unanimously that it would not extend canceled policies, rejecting the president's proposed fix for the problem.
Neff's new policy has a $2,000 deductible and her premium will go up by $24 a month. Under the federal law, she'll no longer have to pay for preventive care, and she figures that alone will more than make up for the additional premium costs.
"I've been paying for my mammograms out of pocket, and that's $400 to $450 per year," Neff says. "That type of care is 100 percent covered under this new policy."


Tim Wilsbach was pleasantly surprised to find better health coverage with a lower deductible on California's health insurance marketplace.

Tim Wilsbach Huge deductibles have been the norm for Tim Wilsbach, a 40-year-old TV editor who lives in Culver City with his family. Like Neff, Wilsbach also makes too much to qualify for federal subsidies, so when he received his cancellation notice a few weeks ago, he was worried his premium would go up.
Wilsbach has two plans for his family. The one being cancelled is a bare-bones policy with an $11,000 deductible that he has for himself and his 4-year-old son.
"It was not a great policy," he says, "which is essentially why we had a second plan for my wife, which we paid a little more for."
Wilsbach and his wife are planning to have a second baby, so they bought a policy for her with better coverage and a $5,000 deductible.
After getting the cancellation notice, Wilsbach checked out plans on the Covered California website and he was pleasantly surprised. He found a plan for the whole family that offers broader coverage, a much lower $4,000 deductible and a more affordable monthly premium.
"Our premium went down not quite 100 bucks, and just looking through what the plan covers versus what used to be covered. Yeah, I'm quite happy about it," Wilsbach says.

Jane Bradford of Pasadena will save $400 a month on insurance premiums through a plan she found on California's health exchange.

Jane Bradford, 52, is a stay-at-home mom in Pasadena. She's losing the HMO insurance she has for herself and her three kids, who are 16, 21 and 23. Her policy offers low copays for doctor visits and a relatively low $3,000 family deductible, but she'll shed no tears to see it go. Bradford says that's because she's found several plans that will cost hundreds less in monthly premiums — even though her husband's income is too high for the family to qualify for a federal subsidy.
"Saving possibly $400 or more a month is awesome, so I'm not sad at all," Bradford says.
None of this comes as a surprise to Micah Weinberg, a senior researcher at the Bay Area Council Economic Institute in San Francisco. "A lot of the anecdotes about people having policies cancelled and gigantic increases are real — but not representative of what's happening more broadly in the marketplace," he says.
Weinberg predicts many people who are losing their policies will come out ahead — even if their premiums go up — because of lower deductibles, full coverage of preventive care and no penalties for pre-existing conditions. What's more, he says, health insurance will almost certainly be cheaper for those who qualify for subsidies. In California, that's an estimated 2.5 million people.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:

I did give you that quote:

No, you didn't. You cited an article, that cited a document, that contained the relevant quote. Perhaps you should have simply cited the document?

See, it's gak like this I just don't understand. Why? What's the purpose of a statement like this? What does it add? Or is it simply for your own edification? I'd love like, a real answer, because it truly makes no sense to me.

He's asking you* to think about your sources, without asking you to think about your sources. By doing so, he is urging you to be rigorous in your research and not just play a game of resources telephone which causes the actual original source to be distorted into somethign it is not. Essentially, he he asking for intellectual rigor, even though it is a message board.


* Note= I am using the word "you" in the universal sense.

I get that. To me it seems like the "intellectual rigor" he's reaching for are overly pedantic, particularly for a wargaming message board.

 Easy E wrote:
Also:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/11/26/246798207/these-californians-greeted-canceled-health-plans-with-smiles

Relapse wrote:

If you will note, the quote we speak of is in the passage I copied for you, check back to my post after you were asking about the breaking back statement I had cited.

Relapse wrote:

You stated that it was good I was using quotes, concerning what I had put up for you.

 Seaward wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Also:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/11/26/246798207/these-californians-greeted-canceled-health-plans-with-smiles

Yeah, I heard that this morning. Guess that meeting the administration had with allied journalists is starting to pay off a little.

So, three Californians are better off. In your estimation, does that invalidate the hundreds of other reported examples of people who are far worse off?

 Easy E wrote:
Plus, I also knew since it was NPR someone would question it as a source. Can I get a list of "acceptable sources" around here?

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:

If you will note, the quote we speak of is in the passage I copied for you, check back to my post after you were asking about the breaking back statement I had cited.

Yes, the quote I provided is in the Letter, but the quote you provided is not; this is the crux of my argument.

Relapse wrote:

You stated that it was good I was using quotes, concerning what I had put up for you.

No, I stated that it was good that Jihadin was using "real quotes".

 Easy E wrote:

Plus, I also knew since it was NPR someone would question it as a source. Can I get a list of "acceptable sources" around here?

 Ouze wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Plus, I also knew since it was NPR someone would question it as a source. Can I get a list of "acceptable sources" around here?

There is only one acceptable source. However, in some situations, we might accept an alternate citation.

Supreme Court to decide whether to review ObamaCare contraception mandate
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's health care law is headed for a new Supreme Court showdown over companies' religious objections to the law's birth-control mandate.

Amid the troubled rollout of the health law, and 17 months after the justices upheld it, the Obama administration is defending a provision that requires most employers that offer health insurance to their workers to provide a range of preventive health benefits, including contraception.

Roughly 40 for-profit companies have sued, arguing they should not be forced to cover some or all forms of birth control because doing so would violate their religious beliefs.

Both sides want the justices to settle an issue that has divided lower courts. The high court could announce its decision whether to take up the topic as early as Tuesday, following its closed-door meeting.

Arguments probably would take place in late March with a decision expected in late June.

The key issue is whether profit-making corporations can assert religious beliefs under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Nearly four years ago, the justices expanded the concept of corporate "personhood," saying in the Citizens United case that corporations have the right to participate in the political process the same way that individuals do.

The administration wants the court to hear its appeal of the Denver-based federal appeals court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby, an Oklahoma City-based arts and crafts chain that calls itself a "biblically founded business" and is closed on Sundays. Founded in 1972, the company now operates more than 500 stores in 41 states and employs more than 13,000 full-time employees who are eligible for health insurance. The Green family, Hobby Lobby's owners, also owns the Mardel Christian bookstore chain.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said corporations can be protected by the 1993 law in the same manner as individuals, and "that the contraceptive-coverage requirement substantially burdens Hobby Lobby and Mardel's rights under" the law.

In its Supreme Court brief, the administration said the appeals court ruling was wrong and, if allowed to stand would make the law "a sword used to deny employees of for-profit commercial enterprises the benefits and protections of generally applicable laws."

In two other cases, courts ruled for the administration. Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp., a Pennsylvania company that employs 950 people in making wood cabinets, is owned by a Mennonite family. Autocam Corp. is a Michigan-based maker of auto parts and medical devices that employs more than 650 people in the U.S.

The companies that have sued over the mandate have objections to different forms of birth control. Conestoga Wood objects to the coverage of Plan B and Ella, two emergency contraceptives that work mostly by preventing ovulation. The FDA says on its website that Plan B "may also work by preventing fertilization of an egg ... or by preventing attachment (implantation) to the womb (uterus)," while Ella also may work by changing of the lining of the uterus so as to prevent implantation.

Hobby Lobby objects to those two forms of contraception as well as two types of intrauterine devices (IUDs). Its owners say they believe life begins at conception, and they oppose only birth control methods that can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus, but not other forms of contraception.

Autocam doesn't want to pay for any contraception for its employees because of its owners' Roman Catholic beliefs.

Physicians for Reproductive Health, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and other medical groups tell the court that the scientific and legal definition of a pregnancy begins with implantation, not fertilization. Contraceptives that prevent fertilization from occurring, or even prevent implantation, do not cause abortion "regardless of an individual's personal or religious beliefs or mores," the groups said.

But another brief from the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Catholic Medical Association and others say in a separate filing that "it is scientifically undisputed that a new human organism begins at fertilization." Emergency contraception that works after fertilization "can end the life of an already developing human organism," regardless of the definition of pregnancy, they said.

 Easy E wrote:
I think you are getting way ahead of yourself Whembly.

I wager they don;t even take the case as Justice Roberts has no desire to be the one to take out Obamacare on a technicality. he has already proved as much.